Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Evidence taken in the United States circuit court in this case clearly established the fact that straw and not silk was the component material of chief value, and the court accordingly reversed the decision of the Board and sustained the claim of the importer.

The Attorney-General having advised this Department, under date of the 21st instant, that no appeal will be directed in this case, you are hereby authorized to take the usual course for refunding the excessive duties exacted on the merchandise involved.

Respectfully, yours,
(7902 g.)

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.

(15666.)

CHARLES S. HAMLIN,

Acting Secretary.

Classification of Lanoline under Act of 1890.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 28, 1895.

SIR: I have to inform you that the Department is in receipt of a letter dated the 23d instant from the United States district attorney for the southern district of New York, in which he reports the trial of the so-called appraisers' case of Movius & Son v. The United States, which resulted in a verdict in favor of the Government, thus sustaining the decisions of the collector and your Board.

It appears that the merchandise consisted of so-called "lanoline" which was imported at New York in the month of May, 1891, and was classified for duty by the collector as "rendered oil" at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 76 of the act of October 1, 1890, the importers protesting and claiming that it was properly dutiable as "wool grease" at one-half cent per pound under paragraph 316 of the said act. On the trial the counsel for the importers argued that the lanoline was nothing more nor less than wool grease from which the impurities had been removed, and the contention of the district attorney was that it had become a new and distinct article by the elimination of certain chemical constituents, notably potash and the salts of potash, in large percentages, by a complicated chemical process which resulted in the formation of what was chemically a new article of fats in new associations, suitable for other and distinct uses from those to which crude wool grease was applied, and was known and dealt in under a new name, as claimed and patented by the manufacturers.

The language of the court is as follows:

"Wool grease is of a brown color and a viscous consistency. It is extracted from wool washings, consists of cholesterine and other fats and volatile fatty acids. It contains from 15 to 30 per cent of potash. It emits a rank, disagreeable odor, it resembles molasses and tar mixed together, it is imported in returned petroleum barrels, it is worth from 2 to 3 cents a pound, and its chief use is for stuffing leather.

"Lanoline,' on the contrary, is an expensive, highly finished product produced from wool grease by an elaborate patented process of elimina

tion and purification, by means of which many of the impurities and all of the potash of the crude wool grease are removed. 'Lanoline' is white in color, it is imported in small, carefully prepared packages, and is used principally in therapeutics. It is not wool grease chemically, commercially, or in common parlance. One of the ingredients of wool grease has disappeared entirely and the others are found in a changed and purified state. 'Lanoline' is made from wool grease just as vaseline is made from petroleum or cheese is made from milk, but it was never known as wool grease in commerce, and no business man would have thought of sending 'lanoline' to fill an order for wool grease.

"The impression derived from the entire record is very strong that the term 'wool grease' would convey to the mind of every business man familiar with the subject an idea of the crude, raw material above described, and it is thought that Congress so used it in the tariff act of 1890.

"It can not be that a refined, expensive product like 'lanoline' should come in under a provision which was manifestly intended to apply to a crude, cheap product different from lanoline' in almost every essential feature.

"The decision of the Board is affirmed."

Respectfully, yours,
(8060 g.)

CHARLES S. HAMLIN,

Acting Secretary.

125 Bleecker street, New York.

The PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF GENERAL APPRAISERS,

(15667-G. A. 2848.)

Metal Buckles for Cotton Ties not Free.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 3, 1895.

In the matter of the protest, 75812-a, of James Pirnie, against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise imported per Bovic, September 11, 1894.

Opinion by WILKINSON, General Appraiser.

The goods are old metal buckles. It is claimed that they were taken off cotton ties, and that they are exempt from duty under paragraph 459, act of August 28, 1894.

Paragraph 459 provides for cotton ties with or without buckles, but not for buckles with or without ties.

The protest is overruled.

(15668-G. A. 2849.)

Bottles not Dutiable as Coverings.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 3, 1895. In the matter of the protest, 24463b, &c., of J. B. Inderrieden & Co., et al., against the decision of the collector of customs at Chicago as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise-bottles not dutiable as coverings-imported per the vessels and on the dates named in annexed schedule.

Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser.

We find that the merchandise covered by the protests under consideration consists of bottles of the description and capacity as returned

by the local appraiser. The bottles were filled with merchandise subject to ad valorem rates of duty and were imported or entered for consumption on or after August 28, .1894. The issue raised by these protests is whether, in addition to the specific rates of duty charged upon the bottles in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 88, the value of said bottles should have been (as was the case) added by the col· lector to the value of the contents in the ascertainment of the dutiable value of the contents. The collector at Chicago, in submitting the papers in one of the cases, reports that in the absence of any authoritative ruling on this point he pursued the course he did in order to be on the safe side.

We do not think the bottles in question are chargeable with the double duty assessed thereon. It is true that section 19 of the act of June 10, 1890, which is still in force, provides that whenever imported merchandise is subject to an ad valorem rate of duty that duty shall be assessed upon the value of the merchandise in a packed condition, including the value of all cartons, cases, crates, boxes, sacks, and coverings of any kind, but we hold that unless such coverings are of an unusual kind the duty provided therefor in said section is in lieu of any other duty, and that inasmuch as bottles, although in a sense coverings, are specifically enumerated in the dutiable list of the present tariff act, they are excluded from the operations of section 19 of the administrative act.

The protests are sustained and the collector's decision in each case is reversed.

(15669-G. A. 2850.)

Silk-Fringed Cotton Braid.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 7, 1895.

In the matter of the protest, 56020 a-25025, of C. M. Vom Baur, against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise-cotton braid-imported per Friesland, and entered October 6, 1892.

Opinion by HAM, General Appraiser.

The merchandise here is cotton braid, known as "seam binding," assessed as cotton trimming at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 373 of the act of October 1, 1890, but claimed as a manufacture of cotton not specially provided for at 40 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 355 of said act.

The case is submitted on the record and the testimony of an employee of appellant. The witness describes the article subject of protest as a cotton braid with a little silk figure; states that cotton is the component material of chief value in the article; that it is worth much more than the silk component; that it is used for seam binding; and that it is similar to a feather-stitched braid.

We find the facts to be as stated by the witness, whose testimony is here summarized, and that the importation was made under the act of October 1, 1890.

In G. A. 1301 this Board held that feather-stitched braids are cotton braids within the intent of paragraph 354 of the act of October 1, 1890— that is to say, that they are specially provided for in that paragraph; and the decision in that case was affirmed by the United States circuit court for the southern district of New York In re Dieckerhoff (54 Fed. Rep., 161), which ruling was acquiesced in by the Treasury Department (G. A. 2143).

The claim of appellant's protest in this case is that the merchandise is dutiable under the general or catch-all clause of the cotton schedule, paragraph 355, which is in part as follows: "All manufactures of cotton not specially provided for in this act, forty per centum ad valorem ". that is to say, in effect, that the article in controversy is not provided for by name in any paragraph of said act, and hence that it falls under the general clause for unenumerated manufactures of cotton; but the evidence shows that it is a cotton braid similar to the feather-stitched braid of commerce, and hence that it is provided for by name in paragraph 354 of said act.

The protest is not well taken; it is accordingly overruled.

(15670-G. A. 2851.)

Books for Gratuitous Private Circulation-Business Publications not Free as. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 8, 1895.

In the matter of the protest, 25294 b-1, of G. W. Black, against the decision of the collector of customs at Port Huron, Mich., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, imported per Tunnel, and entered November 17, 1894.

Opinion by WILKINSON, General Appraiser.

The goods, imported by G. W. Black, customs agent of Grand Trunk lines west of St. Clair Tunnel, are railway publications intended for the use of agents of the various lines. One of the pamphlets is entitled, "Grand Trunk Railway and Intercolonial Railway-West Bound European Tariff No. 122-Passenger Fares, etc."

The merchandise was assessed with duty at 25 per cent, and is claimed to be exempt from duty under the provision of paragraph 410, act of 1894, for "publications of individuals for gratuitous private circulation."

We are of the opinion that publications by business concerns, and imported by corporations for the use of their employees, do not fall within the terms of paragraph 410.

The protest is overruled.

(15671-G. A. 2852.)

Protests on Withdrawal Entries-Insufficient.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 15, 1895.

In the matter of the protest, 24803 b-478, of W. N. Proctor & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at Boston as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, imported per cars, entered for rewarehouse and withdrawal October 26, 1894.

Opinion by HAM, General Appraiser.

The protest here is against the action of the collector of the port of Boston in reducing the money of the country whence the merchandise was exported (milreis) at the rate of $1.08 "in our money," money of the United States, instead of at the rate of $0.835. But the real question is whether the protest is sufficient. The collector's report states that the importation was originally made at the port of New York, March 29, 1894, and that subsequently, on October 2 following, the merchandise was entered for warehouse and transportation to the port of Boston, where a combined entry for rewarehouse and withdrawal was made on the 26th of the same month. It is against this entry that the protest before us was lodged.

The case is parallel with that considered in G. A. 1856, and decided November 28, 1892, where it was held that the protest which was filed at the port of ultimate destination, as in this case, was void on the ground

(1) That the entry was complete at the original port; (2) that the liquidation is part and parcel of the entry, and hence (3) that the act complained of, being that of the collector of the original port, the protest must run to and against him according to the terms of section 14 of the act of June 10, 1890. In support of this view two decisions of the United States Supreme Court were cited, Merritt v. Cameron (11 S. C., 174, vol. 2, National Reporter System), and Cadwalader v. Partridge et al. (2 S. C. Reporter, 182).

It is proper to observe that when the decision in G. A. 1856 was made by this Board there was a case involving the same question pending in the United States Supreme Court, which originated in 1888-Saltonstall, Collector, v. Russell et al. Subsequently, on April 9, 1894, the case was decided (14 Supreme Court Reporter, 733). The opinion of the court, which was delivered by Mr. Justice Gray, reviews exhaustively the law governing the entry for warehouse and transportation of imported merchandise, and the conclusion reached entirely justifies the decision of the Board in G. A. 1856.

The protest is overruled.

(15672-G. A. 2853.)

Domestic Importations-Steam Dredge.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 15, 1895.

In the matter of the protest, 25210b, of Natt Stickney, against the decision of the collector of customs at Ogdensburg, N. Y., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain steam dredge, imported per tug Peter Gorman, and entered November 28, 1894.

Opinion by HAM, General Appraiser.

The merchandise in this case consists of a steam dredge known as

« AnteriorContinuar »